There's a rich history from older wiki communities and projects that we can, and should, draw upon, just as we draw upon existing sources for encyclopedia articles.
Maybe. I'm not actually sure that that's true; Wikipedia is a completely new thing. It's a wiki, but it's a lot more than a wiki.
Perhaps, but we're still building on a foundation that's largely wiki, and many of our problems have also been faced by other wikis. There are lots of other sources to learn from too: older encyclopedia projects (why did they fail?), commercial encyclopedias (is there anything we can leverage from them in our project?) and the rise(s) and fall(s) of other great Internet experiments (Usenet, Slashdot).
I think it's important to realize that we are on the bleeding edge here, and that the experience of others in other online communities, even wiki, doesn't necessarily apply. First, the idea that there is a "rich history" of wikis in particular is laughable, unless there's some definition of "rich history" that includes things created in 1995, none of which has ever produced a product even vaguely resembling what we're trying to produce. I might apply the term "rich history" to things like mailing lists, Usenet, IRC, and MUDs; everything else is new ground.
We also differ greatly from a lot of those earlier communities in that we have a goal: building an encyclopedia. We are not here /for the purpose/ of building a community; the community is just a /means/ to the end of building an encyclopedia. If those other communities teach us something about building communities, that may or may not apply here, because if the community gets in the way of the goal, the goal comes first. I think Wikipedia has more in common with things like open source software projects, in that the community itself is just a secondary concern to producing a product. In other words, we should take our lessons not from MUDs or Everything2, but from Linux kernel development, the Apache project, Mozilla, etc. I think it's worth noting that in all of those projects, there are security and control mechanisms.
So don't tell me what other Wikis have done--it doesn't matter. Tell me what other /successful productive projects/ have done. Don't tell me how to build a community; tell me how to make the community build an encyclopedia.
--- lcrocker@nupedia.com wrote:
There's a rich history from older wiki communities and projects that we can, and should, draw upon,
just
as we draw upon existing sources for encyclopedia
articles.
Maybe. I'm not actually sure that that's true;
Wikipedia
is a completely new thing. It's a wiki, but it's
a lot
more than a wiki.
Perhaps, but we're still building on a foundation that's largely wiki, and many of our problems have also been faced by other wikis. There are lots of other sources to learn from too: older encyclopedia projects (why did they fail?), commercial encyclopedias (is there anything we can leverage from them in our project?) and the
rise(s)
and fall(s) of other great Internet experiments (Usenet, Slashdot).
I think it's important to realize that we are on the bleeding edge here, and that the experience of others in other online communities, even wiki, doesn't necessarily apply.
Yes, but it doesn't necessarily *not* apply, which is what I'm getting at.
First, the idea that there is a "rich history" of wikis in particular is laughable, unless there's some definition of "rich history" that includes things created in 1995, none of which has ever produced a product even vaguely resembling what we're trying to produce. I might apply the term "rich history" to things like mailing lists, Usenet, IRC, and MUDs; everything else is new ground.
"Rich" doesn't necessarily equate with "long". There are examples of many different people trying to do different things, and that qualifies as "rich".
We also differ greatly from a lot of those earlier communities in that we have a goal: building an encyclopedia. We are not here /for the purpose/ of building a community; the community is just a /means/ to the end of building an encyclopedia.
Only MeatBallWiki exists solely for the purpose of community-building and discussion. Ward's Wiki, for example, was originally a repository for programming patterns, shifted into extreme programming, and it's now pretty much a free-for-all. If we want to avoid that, we can look to avoid and/or counter the factors that pushed Wiki in that direction
If those other communities teach us something about building communities, that may or may not apply here, because if the community gets in the way of the goal, the goal comes first.
This is a false dichotomy. If the community falls apart, so does the project. But I'm glad you recognize that lessons from other communities may apply here, just as I recognize that they may not.
I think Wikipedia has more in common with things like open source software projects, in that the community itself is just a secondary concern to producing a product. In other words, we should take our lessons not from MUDs or Everything2, but from Linux kernel development, the Apache project, Mozilla, etc. I think it's worth noting that in all of those projects, there are security and control mechanisms.
If Wikipedia is different from previous wiki projects, it's certainly different from open source software projects.
I think it's a combination of both, with differences thrown into the mix. Why can't we take our lessons from all comers?
Everything2 is a great example. It started out as an encyclopedia project, just like us. Now it's... not. It had (and has) many "security and control mechanisms": police forces, banning, permanent deletion of nodes, experience points, granting of privileges by the privileged. If we, out of ignorance, do the same things that Everything2 has done, we could end up the same way.
So don't tell me what other Wikis have done--it doesn't matter. Tell me what other /successful productive projects/ have done.
What other *unsuccessful* projects have done is just as important. In fact, I say it's more so. Trying to copy other's successes is more difficult than avoid other's mistakes.
Don't tell me how to build a community; tell me how to make the community build an encyclopedia.
Ok, here's one way. Don't treat "the community" and "the project" as separate entities; they are tightly entwined. To focus on building a community and losing sight of the goal is extremely harmful, but so is forgetting that it's the community that works together toward the goal.
Stephen G.
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site http://webhosting.yahoo.com/
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org